WHETHER, AFTER FINDING THE EVIDENCE FACTUALLY INSUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A FINDING OF GUILTY TO THE ADDITIONAL CHARGE AND ITS SPECIFICATION (FORGERY), THE ARMY COURT ERRED IN FINDING APPELLANT GUILTY OF A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE ON A THEORY NOT PRESENTED TO THE TRIER OF FACT.ACCA's unpublished opinion in the case is available here. United States v. Morton, No. ARMY 20060458 (A. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 30, 2008).
.jpg)
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
CAAF grant
As reported by Phil Cave's Court-Martial Trial Practice blog, CAAF yesterday granted review of the following issue in United States v. Morton, No. 09-0185/AR:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
Morton was a guilty plea...there was no "trier of fact"...what the hell's going on here?
It is just another look at the "closely related offense" doctrine. Affirming convictions based on elements not found by previous fact finder- the MJ- in this mixed plea case.
Actually either the opinion from the Army Court is incorrect in describing the posture of the case at trial or the question presented to CAAF is incorrect. It appears to be the latter. It is curious that CAAF did not modify the question presented before granting on the issue.
Post a Comment